• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Sci Fi TV (USA)

StarStuff

Regular
Go to The New York Times site. Look for the article <u>B Movies Invade Your TV!</u>. You have to register but it's free and you can read the article for one week - from Sunday, July 10 to Saturday, July 16 - for free. After that there's a charge.

Some quotes from the article: "A combination of outrageous genre concepts, low-budget filmmaking and sensationalized titles - 'Attack of the Sabretooth,' 'Bloodsuckers,' 'The Man With the Screaming Brain,' and most indelible of all, 'Mansquito' . . . are all part of the sci Fi Channel's attempt to establish a presence on Saturday nights . . . and it has been a major success, with numbers that far exceed anyone's expectation."

"Nearly half of Sci Fi's audience is female, and in the highly sought-after 25-54-year-old demographic category, Sci Fi is the No. 4 basic cable network on Saturdays, behind TNT, USA, and TBS. . . . Films are shot on budgets ranging from $1 million to $2 million in money saving locales like Bulgaria, Romania and Missouri . . . "

"Bonny Hammer, the Sci Fi Channel president, likes to refer to the pictures as 'popcorn movies for those who love the genre' adding, 'viewers come back for the ride: it's a guilty pleasure.'" . . .

"Sci Fi has also announced 'Fire Alien' a fire breathing alien feature starring - who else? - William Satner."

My question: How much did it cost to make JMS' <u>Ranger</u> ?
 
There's a big thread on this over at alt.tv.scifi.channel.....

Bonnie Hammer: "We have a built-in audience"


Heh. My main reply:

Mac Breck Jul 10, 7:56 pm

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel
From: "Mac Breck" <macthevor...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:56:18 -0400
Local: Sun,Jul 10 2005 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: Bonnie Hammer: "We have a built-in audience"

"Straker" <sky.di...@moonbase.alpha> wrote in message
news:100720051552415090%sky.diver@moonbase.alpha...

> The New York Times
> July 10, 2005
> B Movies Invade Your TV!
> By LEWIS BEALE

> "ATTACK OF THE SABRETOOTH." "Bloodsuckers." "The Man With the Screaming
> Brain." And, most indelible of all, "Mansquito."

> A combination of outrageous genre concepts, low-budget filmmaking and
> sensationalized titles like the roll call above are all part of the Sci
> Fi Channel's attempt to establish a presence on Saturday nights, when a
> good number of potential viewers are out, asleep or watching reruns.
> The programming strategy has been a major success, with numbers that
> far exceed anyone's expectations.


Well, trash often attracts an unexpected number of people. People stare
at car crashes too.



> "Alien Apocalypse," Sci Fi's biggest Saturday hit, attracted 2.7
> million viewers in March. That may be a pittance for CBS or NBC, but it
> constitutes a major audience for a niche network. And besides, said
> Steve Sternberg, a television analyst at MagnaGlobal USA, "Friday and
> Saturday have become very weak nights for the broadcast networks,"
> which, he explained, "have not been able to draw enough viewers with
> original entertainment series. Cable networks can flourish with much
> smaller audiences. Original horror and sci-fi movies seem like the
> perfect programming for Saturday night."

> "They're good at the 'D' word, demographics," said Bruce Campbell, a
> star of B movies who also wrote, directed and starred in the "Screaming
> Brain" film,


"The Man With the Screaming Brain" ....must have seen a Sci-Fi Channel
original movie. That'd do it. LOL!



> to be shown in September. "I think they're
> micromarketing," he said, "which in this fragmented world makes sense.
> They're saying, 'Who's at home on Saturday night?' "

> The answer might be surprising. Nearly half of Sci Fi's audience is
> female, and in the highly sought-after 25-to-54-year-old demographic
> category, Sci Fi is the No. 4 basic cable network on Saturdays, behind
> TNT, USA and TBS.

> Sci Fi's foray into Saturday night mayhem began in 2002, when network
> executives realized that cheap,


That's CHEAP, in all of it's meanings, in letters 10 feet tall.



> independently made genre pictures, an
> important element of their programming mix, were hardly being produced
> any more. So, said Tom Vitale, the Sci Fi Channel's senior vice
> president for original movies "We had a choice of recycling older
> movies or going out and trying to create original movies ourselves.

Hmmm, those are the only two choices? How about producing one half or
one quarter as many movies for double to four times the budget each?
The results might be a tad more respectable. Then, a better class of
writer might be able to be attracted.



> We
> went back to these producers who made genre movies, and asked them if
> they wanted to make them with us."

So they went for ULTRA CHEAP and large volume. Well, the Hell with
quality; who needs that? <S>




> People like Ken Badish jumped at the chance. Mr. Badish's company,
> Active Entertainment, will have produced nine Sci Fi movies by the end
> of 2005, high-concept features like "Mansquito" (experiment gone awry
> creates man-mosquito hybrid!), and "Alien Lockdown" (government science
> produces horrific slime thing!).

> The most important element of a Sci Fi film, Mr. Badish said, "is a
> topical film that has relevance to our audience."
> "In a film coming up," he added, "stem cells are key to the plot; in
> another, it's mad cow disease. Secondly, there's a good story. Like
> we're shooting a 'Jaws'-kind of movie featuring a giant squid. We make
> a reasonable use of C.G.I., because the audience wants that escapist
> thing. And we add emotional content, so the audience can feel for the characters."
> Often that amounts to borrowing shamelessly from works like "Alien,"
> "The Fly" and "The Thing" and then adding ideas gleaned from Scientific American or Wired.


...and adds bad acting, bad writing, and almost nonexistent production
values. It's called spoiling a good idea, assuming a hint of a good
idea was there to begin with.



> Shot on budgets ranging from $1 million to $2 million, Sci Fi's movies

ULTRA cheap.



> are made in money-saving locales like Bulgaria, Romania and Missouri.

Now there's an odd grouping.



> They're cast with B-list celebrities like Luke Perry and Stephen
> Baldwin, with the occasional big-picture actors - Sean Astin and John
> Rhys-Davies of "Lord of the Rings" - making an appearance. The network
> pays $750,000 for domestic TV rights, and the producers make their
> money back through international and DVD sales.
> But are the films any good?

Uh, no. Hell no.



> Critics have not found much to praise,
> though some seem to have tried pretty hard. Virginia Heffernan of The
> New York Times said "Chupacabra: Dark Seas" (monster runs amok on a
> cruise liner!) was "founded on broad clichés, overacted and clumsily
> blocked." But she added that the casting of serious actors like Mr.
> Rhys-Davies and Giancarlo Esposito "provides evidence of self-respect,"
> that "someone has tried to make a coherent, passionate and traditional
> B movie." Entertainment Weekly opened one of its reviews by noting,
> "There are better things on tonight, but none are called 'Mansquito.'

Giancarlo Esposito? Who??? OK, I recognize the face from "Harley
Davidson and the Marlboro Man." As for Rhys-Davies, he's probably sorry
and embarrassed.




> The critics' disfavor doesn't seem to bother the folks behind the
> films, who have no pretensions to high art. Bonnie Hammer, the Sci Fi
> Channel president, likes to refer to the pictures as "popcorn movies
> for those who love the genre," adding, "Viewers come for the ride;
> it's a guilty pleasure."

If they can stand the stench.



> Jeff Beach, whose Unified Film Organization

Oh, brother! Unified Film Organization, the ones who gave us such gems
as:

<u>Title and IMDB Vote Rating </u>
Crimson Force (2005) (TV) ... 3.1
Darklight (2004) (TV) ... 4.5
P.I.: Post Impact (2004) ... 3.4
Dragon Storm (2004) (TV) ... 3.7
Phantom Force (2004) (TV) ... 4.6
(The director, Christian McIntire, fought and lost to have his name
removed from the film after disagreements with producers and the Sci-Fi
Channel over script changes and interference in the story and
production.)

Epoch: Evolution (2003) (TV) ... 4.3
Deep Shock (2003) ... 2.8
Silent Warnings (2003) (V) ... 4.1

Interceptor Force 2 (2002) (TV) ... 4.1
(Personally, I gave it a 1.)

Dark Descent (2002) ... 3.3
Landspeed (2002) ... 4.6
Lost Voyage (2001) (TV) ... 4.6

Python (2000) ... 3.4
(I turned it off 10 or 15 minutes into it. Ugh! That was a waste of
electricity.)

Deep Core (2000) ... 3.2
Under Pressure (2000) ... 3.7
Falcon Down (2000) ... 4.4
Storm (1999) ... 4.0

Interceptors (1999) ... 3.3
( Personally, I gave it a 1.)

Total Reality (1997) ... 4.2

Velocity Trap (1997) ... 3.9
(Personally, I gave it a 2.)

Darkdrive (1996) ... 2.9



> has made 20 films for the network, calls them "high-concept
> action-adventure movies with elements that are fun, whether a creature
> or a disaster."

> "B movies don't mean bad," said Mr. Campbell

It does, where Unified Film Organization is involved.



>, who starred in the
> classic "Evil Dead" films. "They're just operating on a limited budget
> and are trying to be entertaining. You go to the Sci Fi Channel, you
> see a high-energy thing."

Well, Bruce Campbell being in it could make almost anything watchable. :)



> And viewers are seeing a lot of them. The channel produced one original
> movie in 2002. This year there will be 23.

Hmmm, ~$35 million wasted. :(



> Next year, 28.

<shakes head> ~$42 million more wasted. :(
I can think of much better uses for ~$77 million to be used for Sci-Fi
Channel programming:

Re-start/fix "Crusade."
Re-start "Brimstone."
Re-start "Strange Luck."
Re-start "Special Unit 2."
Re-start "The Tick" (live action with Patrick Warburton).




> That's more than some major studios produce,
> and at a bargain basement price of $21 million - total.

Yes, loads and loads of shite. Makes me want to watch that channel. NOT!!!



> Coming soon: "Heat Stroke" (aliens are producing global warming!),
> "Magma" (government project goes awry; Earth's core begins to
> overheat!) and "Black Hole Terror" (black hole threatens to swallow the
> Midwest!).

Maybe it could swallow just one group of offices in NYC, the SFC offices? :devil: :devil: :devil: Seems tailor made for Galen's Spell of Destruction (Babylon 5 - The Passing of the Technomages, books 1 thru 3).



> Sci Fi has also announced "Fire Alien," a fire-breathing
> alien feature starring - who else? - William Shatner.
> Even Internet hoaxes can lead to Sci Fi movie ideas. Last April, a
> bogus report circulated about a strain of malaria that quickly killed
> its victims and then restarted their hearts, turning them into violent
> zombies for several hours. Now in development at the Sci Fi Channel: a
> movie with the possible titles "Zombie Resurrection" or "Revenge of the
> Undead."

> All this, and the promotional budget is virtually nil. "In traditional
> movies of the week you would have to promote it and market it each
> week," Ms. Hammer said. "We have a built-in audience. Our fans will
> come to us first, so we don't have to market it."

They should be EMBARRASSED to market it.


> But, Mr. Vitale added, Sci Fi is also "trying to reach a mainstream TV audience."

With shite?



> He added: "Look at CBS: they did 'Spring Break Shark Attack.'

Yeah, sunk to Sciffy's level, not something to be proud of. 'Spring Break Shark Attack.' was the butt of jokes on last night's "The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson." Maybe that's something the Sci-Fi Chanel can aspire to, to be the butt of broadcast network jokes? :devil: :rolleyes: :devil:



> We are sort of zigging where the other networks are zagging.

He's sort of dizzy. :p


> If you are home on Saturday night, you are looking for that escapist
> experience."

You get escapist experience on ***FRIDAY*** nights on Sci-Fi.



> ------------------------------­------------------------------­----------
---

> Hammer's statements about how fans will come to them and they don't
> need to market the movies pretty much sums up her contempt for the
> audience. We must be so desperate that we'll watch anything.

That's what she thinks. In my case, she's utterly wrong.



> And what would be so wrong with recycling older movies?

Nothing at all.

How about some newer movies like "Eight Legged Freaks" (2002)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0271367/ ? I rented the DVD and was pleasantly surprised. That was done in the spirit of the old B-movies. THAT was likeable. Hell, I even watched/listened all of the special features.

How about "Pitch Black" and "The Chronicles of Riddick" (Director's Cut)? I bought TCoR, and watched/listened to all of the special features of that disc, too. It wasn't bad. Not bad at all. Three or
four orders of magnitude better than the average Sci-Fi original movie. It had some GOOD stars (Colm Feore[1], Judi Dench, and Alexa Davalos. I'm starting to become a Vin Diesel fan because of these two movies. I even rented "The Pacifier." <g>)




> There are so
> many old SF, fantasy and horror movies out there that they'd have
> enough to show on Saturday night for years without any repeats. Some of
> us remember the salad days of Chiller Theatre and Creature Feature on
> Saturday nights.

Chiller Theater in Pittsburgh, PA with 'Chilly Billy' Cardille, oh yes. :)


[1] Man, that guy has a presence. (in evidence in Stephen King's "Storm of the Century" and "The Chronicles of Riddick" director's cut) Makes me want to seek out his other movies.

--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
------------------------------­-
"Brimstone" (1998)
[As Stone goes through someone's mailbox]
Ashe: Pardon me for interrupting you here, but that happens to be a
federal crime. Is that within your jurisdiction, too?
Ezekiel Stone: I answer to a lower power.
 
Sooner or later someone will use a computer to not just colorize an old sci fi B picture, but modernize the cars, clothes, hair styles, etc., and re-release it. They could have a near endless source of very cheap pictures that are better than most of the crap they turn out. Or maybe they could just hire Herschel Gordon Lewis, creator of those classics The Gore Gore Girls, and Blood Feast. He could do two or three pictures for what they pay for one.
 
Funny, Recoil, I don't find myself laughing.

I wonder what age range their female audience is. About the same as the 13-year-old boys they seem to program for? :rolleyes:

And just when did the 25-54 year olds become a sought after advertising group? Last I heard my sex and age made most sci-fi folks ignore my opinion. Or was that just becuase I'd like to stab out John Edward's eyes with a blunt, rusty spoon? :confused:
 
Oh, come on. It's not THAT bad. Then again, maybe it is. I just don't feel much like criticizing Sci-Fi for everything they do when it's been evident they're doing.... whatever it is they're doing..... Yes. I just don't think it's worth pointing at them and laughing anymore, since they've been doing this kind of stuff for awhile now. It's basically beating a dead horse. I was kinda miffed when Rangers came and went and failed to create a show. I got kinda pissed when Farscape got canned. I've also seen stuff like Invisible Man and The Chronicle come, and then go prematurely. I guess that's actually it. If I was against crappy movies, maybe I'd wave a fist in the air some more, but I don't much care about that.

Basically, my whole point all boils down to a simple concept. I watch crappy movies and don't care. Or something. Whatever. Just felt like trying to perhaps defend crap.
 
[snip]....Basically, my whole point all boils down to a simple concept. I watch crappy movies and don't care. Or something. Whatever. Just felt like trying to perhaps defend crap.

I see a whole new thread in Babbelon forming now...

Defenders of Crap.

The Crap Crusaders.

Man of a Thousand Craps? (Maybe I'm pushing my luck now...:eek:)
 
Hrm. Don't know if it needs to extend THAT far. Heh.

And perhaps defending isn't the right idea. Perhaps I'm just trying to add a little leverage to Sci-Fi in what will either be A) a thread that will just end up being negative comments made about the channel and it's programming decisions and whatnot, or B) a thread that might get one or two more posts, and then drift off into the ether, never to return. Well, unless it turned into an awesome ghost ship, which would return on some sort of anniversary to terrorize the coastline. Ghost pirates are cool.
 
And just when did the 25-54 year olds become a sought after advertising group? Last I heard my sex and age made most sci-fi folks ignore my opinion.

When the network executives realised that MTV has the under 25 market so they had better go chasing other markets. Plus furniture and new car manufactures discovered that their products were purchased by grownups.

As for 13 years old boys, that is old. Soap operas are written in English a 9 year old can read.

Or was that just becuase I'd like to stab out John Edward's eyes with a blunt, rusty spoon? :confused:

Sex and violence. Are you willing for this to be show this in prime time? ;)
 
Funny, Recoil, I don't find myself laughing.

It's funny because I highly doubt that HALF of their audience is female. They can make their results and numbers look however they want...

And KoshN: A noble attempt at a reply on your part. Unfortunately since obviously people ARE watching the low-budget trashy stuff they put out, no words from you, no matter how true or logical, will ever convince them to do otherwise. If its working, and they are making money, expect a LOT more of it to come...
 
There's a Sci-Fi Channel?

Look, you people have to realise two things:

1. Most sci-fi is crap.
Yes, it is, It is! It's either bland action, T&A, bullshit "fantasy" shit, fake news show about alien autopsies or telepathy, B monster movies, etc. This is true about TV shows, films, books, anything. Even when it's good, like B5, or kinda entertaining, like Firefly or Farscape, it's just set in space and has little to do with the spirit of science fiction that allowed creative dorks to imagine worlds of dread or promise that reflective human fears and potentials.

Not a lot of Clarks and Ellisons and Kubricks around in the mainstream, these days.

2. Network and basic cable are creatively dead mediums.
If I was a successful producer, I wouldn't even bother pitching a show to a network or basic cable station. Advertisers with their demans? Commercials? The FCC? Fuck that. There's a reason that every original series HBO produces is at least worthy of consideration and discussion.
 
And KoshN: A noble attempt at a reply on your part. Unfortunately since obviously people ARE watching the low-budget trashy stuff they put out, no words from you, no matter how true or logical, will ever convince them to do otherwise.

Thanks, and yes, I'm aware of that.

"When one of us does a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be."
-- Dukhat in Babylon 5:"Atonement"

That's the spirit in which I intended my reply. I know full well that it's not going to change anything.


If its working, and they are making money, expect a LOT more of it to come...

No doubt. :rolleyes:
 
Oh, come on. It's not THAT bad. Then again, maybe it is. I just don't feel much like criticizing Sci-Fi for everything they do when it's been evident they're doing.... whatever it is they're doing..... Yes. I just don't think it's worth pointing at them and laughing anymore, since they've been doing this kind of stuff for awhile now. It's basically beating a dead horse.

I <u>don't</u> criticize Sci-Fi for everything they do. I have <u>not</u> criticized them for Battlestar Galactica (the new one), SG-1 or SG-A. I've <u>defended</u> them for those three shows (...SG-A mostly on faith, since I've only seen the intro, DVD.).




I was kinda miffed when Rangers came and went and failed to create a show. I got kinda pissed when Farscape got canned. I've also seen stuff like Invisible Man and The Chronicle come, and then go prematurely. I guess that's actually it. If I was against crappy movies, maybe I'd wave a fist in the air some more, but I don't much care about that.

I care about them pissing tons of money away on crap, <u>money that could be much better used elsewhere</u>, like the series I mentioned above. They could help <u>reverse</u> some FOX, TNT and UPN (CBS) atrocities. Instead, they're making things <u>worse</u>.


Basically, my whole point all boils down to a simple concept. I watch crappy movies and don't care. Or something. Whatever. Just felt like trying to perhaps defend crap.

By watching crap movies, you're giving that freakin' ditz Hammer <u>positive</u> feedback, and are aiding and abetting the dumbing down of TV in general, and the Sci-Fi Channel in particular. If people would shun the shit that's on the channel, and watch only the better quality stuff that <u>is</u> on the channel, she wouldn't be throwing $77 million at shit.

Yeah, I know, you're going to say that you're not Nielsen rated. Still, comments that defend crap may influence others to watch crap, and hence we'll get even more crap, and even less quality sci-fi.

Don't you get it? Even one voice can make a difference. Make yours make a <u>positive</u> difference.
 
1. Most sci-fi is crap.
Well, we might as well be completely clear.

This is not a science fiction issue.

Most of any genre is crap. Good writing is the exception and not the norm regardless of whether you are talking about SF, mystery, romance, ....... you name it.
 
1. Most sci-fi is crap.
Well, we might as well be completely clear.

This is not a science fiction issue.

Most of any genre is crap. Good writing is the exception and not the norm regardless of whether you are talking about SF, mystery, romance, ....... you name it.

Sturgeon's_Law
Theodore Sturgeon replied to a fan who wondered why he wrote science fiction when he was a skilled writer of other genres, "Sure, ninety percent of science fiction is crud. That's because ninety percent of everything is crud."
 
Koshn, I'm right there with you on the feelings, however, Scifi Channel, can play those crap movies several times in the same month, so, there invenstment is actually half or 1/4 of that, because it provides more air time to be filled. A TV series, isn't likely to be played as many times as a movie, so therefore is not filling as much airtime. So, they are going to go with the cheapest for the most airtime filled. Common sense business.
 
Koshn, I'm right there with you on the feelings, however, Scifi Channel, can play those crap movies several times in the same month, so, there invenstment is actually half or 1/4 of that, because it provides more air time to be filled.

I prefer dead airspace. At least it doesn't suck the intelligence right out of you. Bonnie's kind of like a Na'ka'leen Feeder in this respect, and each one of these movies is one of her tentacles.



A TV series, isn't likely to be played as many times as a movie, so therefore is not filling as much airtime. So, they are going to go with the cheapest for the most airtime filled. Common sense business.

They could do the same thing with fewer original movies that have a bigger budget, better writers and better stars, and then they'd be getting <u>good</u> word of mouth. Airing "Mansquito" seventeen times a month (an exaggeration, I know) doesn't do that.

The object should not be to produce the worst possible stuff and then air it as much as possible, just because it's cheap. This stuff is MST3K fodder when no MST3K is around to digest it. So, it stinks up the Saturday night lineup, and furthers the stereotype (among mainstream viewers) that sci-fi is stupid and ridiculous.
 
I recognize low-budget crap when I see it. I'm spoiled by feature films -- I want GOOD CGI (or even model) effects. When I see an ad for a show like "Attack of the Sabertooth" or whatever it is, the freakin animal looks no more realistic than stop-action animation. Similarly, when I see a preview for a "sci-fi original" that shows clips that might appear impressive, I liken it to watching a commercial for a bad video game. The content sucks, so all they show are the game's cinematics, which usually ARE impressive, even for games that blow.

There's nothing wrong with B-movie actors, on the whole. Bruce Campbell is one of the best out there -- he's made a name for himself by doing them. He found his niche. Sci-Fi's money would be much better spent hiring niche and character actors like Bruce, as well as young, aspiring actors who show some actual promise, instead of vapid, talentless bimbos and hunks who they end up re-dubbing later anyway.

The shining beacons in the sci-fi world started off mixing new, aspiring actors with existing, talented actors and relatively low budgets... Star Trek in the '60s, Doctor Who, Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, etc. What made them popular was good writing, good character development, and good acting. As their popularity grew, so did their budgets. Today we look back at them and recognize these things. In 10 years, no one will remember TV movies like Tripping the Rift, Attack of the Sabertooth, or Mansquito, or series like Black Scorpion or Lexx.
 
Eh, I'm just not cut out for this. Watching bad movies on Sci-Fi has become a habit for me. Plus, I have no good arguments to defend their stuff myself. And I tend to overstep with my comments, and don't always think things through.

And I guess I'll step out of this. I have nothing useful to add to anything, really. I'm just one of those people who are fine and dandy with the whole thing, even if it isn't all that great in the Big Picture. Although, I have come to fear seeing the words "Unified" "Film" and "Organization" during the opening credits of any given movie. Also, I don't like ALL of the movies. Some are decent, and some are bad to the point of being good. A lot of the more recent movies have been closer to "boring as hell" than anything else. Aside from all that, good stuff! :D
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top